Award Recommendation - Travel Services 8-29-19.pdf

Award Recommendation for RFP#: 190000002051

Award Recommendation Notice of Intent to Award Number 190000000944

The Department of Technology, Management, & Budget’s Procurement office has completed the evaluation of Request for Proposal number 1900000002051- Statewide Professional Travel Agency Services and has recommended an award to Conlin Travel Inc. in the amount of $450,000.00, pending State Administrative Board approval, if applicable. More information on the State Administrative Board can be found at: State Administrative Board.

Bidders who were not recommended for the award are encouraged to schedule a debriefing session with the Solicitation Manager. The debriefing session will provide the bidder with the State’s rationale on why the bidder was not recommended for the award. The Solicitation Manager may be contacted as follows:

Sarah Walter, Solicitation Manager WalterS6@michigan.gov 517-256-4237

Background Information:

This Request for Proposal (RFP) was to solicit responses for selection of a Contractor to provide Statewide Professional Travel Agency Services and Reservation Systems for domestic and international lodging and travel accommodations by air, car, and/or rail services. The term of this contract is three-years, with up to two additional one-year period renewal options.

Bidders:

The RFP was posted on SIGMA VSS on April 26, 2019 for 42 days. The following bidders submitted proposals by the published due date of June 6, 2019.

Bidder Address City, State Zip

SDVOB*

Conlin Travel Inc.

3270 Washtenaw Avenue Ann Arbor, MI, 48104

No

Dumonde Group (DBA Dumonde Travel)

1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, Florida, 33131

No

*SDVOB: Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Business

STATE OF MICHIGAN PROCUREMENT

Department of Technology Management & Budget 525 W. Allegan, 1st Floor, Lansing, MI 48913 P.O. BOX 30026 Lansing, MI 48909 https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/0,5552,7-358-82550_85746_48756---,00.html https://www.michigan.gov/dtmb/0,5552,7-358-82550_85746_48756---,00.html

Evaluation Synopsis

I. Evaluation Process

A Responsible Vendor is a vendor that demonstrates it has the ability to successfully perform the duties identified by the solicitation. A Responsive proposal is one that is submitted in accordance with the solicitation instructions and meets all mandatory requirements identified in the solicitation.

Proposal Instructions, Evaluation Process

Technical Evaluation Criteria Weight

1. General Requirements and Capabilities – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 – 6

2. Project Plan and Staffing – Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 7 – 12

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet

Total

Proposals receiving 80 technical evaluation points, or more will have pricing evaluated and considered for award. The full evaluation process is stated in the RFP Proposal Instructions.

II. Evaluation Method

Responses to this solicitation were reviewed by a Joint Evaluation Committee, which consisted of the following individuals:

Voting

Sarah Walter, Solicitation Manager Department of Technology Management and Budget (DTMB) – Procurement Services & Commodities

Jamie Mathews, Analyst DTMB – Vehicle and Travel Services

Ronda Whiting, Analyst DTMB – Vehicle and Travel Services

III. Evaluation Results

A. Conlin Travel Inc.

The Evaluation Team determined that Conlin Travel Inc. based on a score of 89, did meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – General Requirements, Sections 1 – 6 (34/40) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.2.B – Bidder did not describe or indicate how cost exceptions for Hotel Reservations would be documented or reported.

b. Section 1.2.C – Bidder did not describe how commissions for lodging would be documented and returned to the State.

c. Section 2.A. – Bidder identified proposed System Software; however, Bidder did not describe the following: system capabilities and features, Description of ease of use, or data reporting capabilities.

d. Section 2.1.B – Bidder did not describe how reporting for work accomplished during the reporting period would be documented, or how real or anticipated problems would be captured in reports.

e. Section 2.1.C – Bidder did not provide a Sample Travel reporting template that would meet the specifications of this requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Project Plan & Staffing, Sections 7-12 (40/45) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were most satisfactory, however, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 7.1.A – Bidder did not provide an organizational chart that detailed personnel assigned to this project by name and title, as required.

b. Section 9.3 – Bidder’s technical support, repairs and maintenance hours do not align with the hours specified in this requirement. However, afterhours emergency support will accommodate requests during these times.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet (15/15)

The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the responses provided were satisfactory, no deficiencies were noted.

Total Score: 89/100

B. Dumonde Group, LLC

The Evaluation Team determined that Dumonde Group, LLC based on a score of 57, did not meet the requirements of this RFP. This determination was accomplished by evaluating their responses to the Technical Evaluation Criteria.

1. Schedule A, Statement of Work – General Requirements, Sections 1 – 6 (23/40) The Joint Evaluation Committee determined that the overall responses were mostly unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 1.1.C – Bidder did not describe how the proposed travel management system TRMAS, would document unused air travel tickets, or what type or report(s) would be generated to track activity.

b. Section 1.2.B – Bidder did not describe how reasons for exception, and costs exceptions would be reported, Or, provide a sample reporting template that would capture exception information.

c. Section 1.2.C – Bidder did not describe how commissions for lodging would be documented and/or returned to the State.

d. Section 2.A – Bidder provided the name of proposed system software however, Bidder did not describe proposed system’s capabilities and features, ease of use or data reporting capabilities.

e. Section 2.C – Bidder did not describe how their online booking tool would meet the specifications outlined in this requirement.

f. Section 2.1.A – Bidder did not describe proposed software capabilities and ability to track trends, or ability to generate reports; or describe how proposed software would be made accessible to State Agencies.

g. Section 2.1.B – Bidder did not describe how reporting for work accomplished during the reporting period would be documented; or indicate how real or anticipated problems would be captured in reports. Bidder did not provide a sample reporting template as required.

h. Section 2.1.C – Bidder did not describe how revenue reporting, quality assurance reports, exception reports, Ad hoc, and industry monitoring would be performed to meet the specifications for this requirement.

i. Section 2.1.D – Bidder indicated capability of providing reports, however Bidder did not describe how these types of reports will be provided to the State Agencies.

j. Section 4.A – Bidder did not provide an implementation plan or describe how implementation for services would be conducted to meet the specifications outlined in this requirement.

2. Schedule A, Statement of Work – Project Plan & Staffing, Sections 7 – 12 (29/45) unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Section 7.1.A – Bidder did not describe how the requirements for a project plan would be met or provide an organizational chart that detailed personnel assigned to this project by name and title, as required.

b. Section 9.2 – Bidder did not specify a toll-free number for the State to contact the Contractor Representative as required.

c. Section 11. – Bidder did not provide Key Personnel or resumes for individuals who would be assigned to the State of Michigan account.

d. Section 11.1 – Bidder did not provide an overall organizational chart that details staff members by name and title as required.

e. Section 12.C – Bidder did not identify the company that will perform background checks.

f. Section 12.D – Bidder did not identify the scope of the background checks that would be performed as required.

3. Vendor Questions Worksheet (5/15) unsatisfactory, the following deficiencies were noted:

a. Experience 1 – Bidder did not provide a work experience of similar size or scope.

b. Experience 2 – Bidder did not provide a work experience of similar size or scope.

c. Experience 3 – Bidder did not provide a work experience of similar size or scope.

Total Score: 57/100

IV. Technical Evaluation Summary Selection Criteria Conlin Travel Inc. Dumonde Group, LLC

1 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 1 – 6 34 23

2 Schedule A, Statement of Work, Sections 7 – 12 40 29 3 Vendor Questions Worksheet 15 5 Total 89 57

VI. Pricing Summary Pricing was evaluated for the bidders who passed technical. The following is a summary of their price proposals:

Conlin Travel, Inc. Pricing Domestic Reservations Transaction Fee

Agent Supported Air Reservation $20.00

Online Air Only Reservation $7.00

Agent Support Hotel Reservation $10.00

Online Hotel Only Reservation $4.75

Agent Supported Car Reservation $10.00

Online Car Only Reservation $0

Agent Supported Combined Reservation (Air, Hotel, Car) $20.00

Online Combined Reservation (Air, Hotel, Car) $7.00

International Reservations Transaction Fee

Agent Supported Air Reservation $20.00 Other Charges Transaction Fee

Online Reservation System N/A

After Hours Calls $15.00

VII. Negotiations: The Bidder submitted their initial Transaction Fee per individual reservation booked. DTMB Central Procurement Services then engaged in one round of pricing negotiations. After negotiations, DTMB was able to obtain a hard savings in the following amounts:

• $1.00 per Online Air Only Reservation Transaction ($1,200.00 annually)

• $1.00 per Online Combined Reservation (Air, Hotel, Car) Transaction ($800 annually)

• $8.00 per Agent Supported Air Reservation, International Reservations Transaction ($800 annually)

For a total of $2,800.00 in Hard Savings annually, hard Savings are calculated against the originally contracted pricing.

VIII. Award Recommendation:

This Award Recommendation is made to the responsive and responsible Bidder who offers the best value to the State of Michigan. Best value is based on the proposal meeting the minimum point threshold and offering the best combination of the factors stated in the Proposal Instructions Evaluation Process Section 8, and price. Conlin Travel Inc. provided the best value to the State. Award Recommendation is made to Conlin Travel Inc. in the amount of $450,000.00.